Oil Alternative

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
First; don't blame the government. Blame the US citizens. It is their need for cheap and abundant energy that is the biggest barrier to introducing alternate sources/forms of energy.

The Us government ( And a few others) are directly to blame for the current situation and it's got NOTHING to do with average US citizens. Oil IS cheap and abundant so there is no barrier to low oil prices other than policies set by governments around the world.

Second; there isn't enough real estate in the US to grow the amount of soybeans necessary to fulfill the energy needs of America.

Yes there most certainly is.

Third; If there was enough space, the cost would be astronomical as the care/nurturing needed to produce the soybeans would far exceed the cost of pumping oil from the ground.

Probably would but it would make it far harder for US leaders to involve Americans in foreign escapades of their own making.

Would you be willing to pay $15.00 for the equivalent energy of a gallon of gasoline? I wouldn't. And neither would most of Americans.

It really would not cost anywhere near that much considering that 50 billion odd USD is saved jusy by not spending money on mid east security ( read insecurity).

The only alternative source of energy that could satisfy our energy needs and is cheap is nuclear.

Nuclear aint cheap and there are are numerous ways it could be done cheaper.

Stellar

Pffftt. How do you know oil alternatives are not getting the respect and funds they should? What is meant by oil alternatives? Do you have any first hand knowledge in this, how much research have you done? Soyoil is crap anyway.

Originally posted by Frosty
Pffftt. Soyoil is crap anyway.

Exactly how is soyoil crap?

Soybeans and corn are not the only alternate scources of renewable energy, there are many crops that can be used as energy scources.

[edit on 16-3-2006 by MBF]

I may be a new user but I have been lurking for a while.
however as far as oil alternatives goes there is a company in the uk called the biodiesel corp (private company). who have invested a lot of money building a refinery on teesside (just down the road from my house).
And they have spent a lot of cash on it.
But do some digging on where they are going to grow there crop, it's on brown field land x industrial land. The other bits of info and links to government organisations are probably best left to another forum.

However as far as alternative energies to power transportation why can't I get a nuclear battery for my prius ?
Easy simple.

Originally posted by AceOfBase

As far as Soybean is concerned as a crop for biodiesel, it's one of the least efficient crops to use.

en.wikipedia.org...

* Soybean: 40 to 50 US gal/acre (35 to 45,000 L/km²)
* Rapeseed: 110 to 145 US gal/acre (100 to 130,000 L/km²)
* Mustard: 140 US gal/acre (130,000 L/km²)
* Jatropha: 175 US gal/acre (160,000 L/km²)
* Palm oil: 650 US gal/acre (580,000 L/km²) [6]
* Algae: 10,000 to 20,000 US gal/acre (9,000,000 to 18,000,000 L/km²)

That's right, soybean is not the best biofuel source there is. Palm oil is.

Wikipedia: Palm Oil

The Malaysian government is refocusing the use of palm oil to the production of biodiesel; it has encouraged the building of three biodiesel plants, two biodiesel plants at Kulim and one in Singapore. This is due to the higher prices of fuel and increasing demand for alternatives sources of energy.

The plants, which will start operating middle of next year and produce 100,000 tonnes of biodiesel annually. Strong demand for biodiesel from Europe as well as Colombia, India, South Korea and Turkey was fuelling the industry's growth, as more countries sought to reduce their reliance on oil.

Malaysia has already begun preparations to change from diesel to bio-fuels by 2008, including drafting legislation that will make the switch mandatory. Being the world's largest producer of crude palm oil, Malaysia intends to take advantage of the rush in finding cleaner fuels.

Algae has an even greater potential, but there are certain stumbling blocks that have to be overcome, nothing impossible.

So, can some more people comment on my thread about algae-based biofuels now? It's been sitting there for close to a week and I've only got one comment so far. I took quite a while doing research on algae and biofuels, writing up the article and formatting it nicely..

Originally posted by Beachcoma
So, can some more people comment on my thread about algae-based biofuels now? It's been sitting there for close to a week and I've only got one comment so far. I took quite a while doing research on algae and biofuels, writing up the article and formatting it nicely..

Beachcoma;

A while ago, and in another thread, you made a reference to the US's actions against palm oil as an export from malaysia (or some such reference). Can you please expand on that?

Originally posted by Lady of the Lake

It is an outrage that alternatives to oil are not getting the profile, funding and respect that they should. The manipulation by oil companies is no longer acceptable but the voices of our leaders are silent.

The recent story of a car that was built by five kids from the auto shop program at West Philadelphia High School that runs on soybean oil is yet just another example. It will be interesting to see how long it takes for these young people and their teachers to be ridiculed and perhaps some even 'disappear'. Wouldn't be the first time.

I can't speak for Australia, but everyone knows that the US is run by Big Oil straight from the White House. So, naturally, our leaders don't care what we think as long as they're raking in the big cash.

As for those kids and their car, I think it's great and anyone who makes fun of them for practicing innovation should think about the wisdom of it. These kids are the leading edge of the fight to liberate the US from its present oligarchy.

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
Beachcoma;

A while ago, and in another thread, you made a reference to the US's actions against palm oil as an export from malaysia (or some such reference). Can you please expand on that?

Sure, here you go:

American Palm Oil Council: The Truth About Palm Oil

[...]

The Unjustified "Health Scare" on Palm Oil

Despite the prominent position of palm oil in world markets, it was not marketed extensively in the United States until the early 1980s. By 1985, palm oil had garnered only two percent share of the American market, which was dominated by soybean oil (with over 70% of the market share). Palm oil became the target of a massive negative advertising campaign, including widely published allegations that palm oil is "hazardous to health". Palm oil was the victim of letter-writing campaigns to food companies complaining of palm oil's allegedly adverse health effects.

In 1987, a bill was proposed in Congress to impose special labeling restrictions on food products containing tropical oils. The bill was withdrawn following stiff opposition - including criticism by the FDA, the office of the United States Trade Representative, and the scientific community. The campaign against palm oil was unprecedented. Palm oil was used widely throughout the world, and no government had ever labeled it unhealthful. The USFDA criticized the negative advertising campaign.

In February 1992, the Atlantic District office Issued a "Warning Letter" to Goodmark Foods, Inc. concerning fried potato products, stating: "The label statement "NO TROPICAL OILS" represents and suggests that the products contain little or no saturated fatty acids but the labels fail to reveal the level of saturated fatty acids in a serving of these products. Such a statement is further misleading in that the products contain partially hydrogenated oils.

[...]

To protect American Soybean Oil, your government conducted a massive smear campaign of palm oil. Malaysia being the world's largest producer of palm oil, producing nearly half of the world production, suffered from that smear campaign.

'Green' alternatives have been around for decades and they have never panned out. Particularly because of a lack of resources attributed to poor planning, poor products, and little interest amongst concumers. Rendering plants have been around for over a decade, you probably know them better as the de-polymerization plants that use turkey parts to make oil, but the problem with this idea is that rendering plants smell. They smell utterly horrible and people want nothing to do with them for the most part. Though most of the early rendering plants used fish parts, I suppose turkey parts may be less corrosive on the senses, although nothing suggest that these pants are any better.

Ethanol has been tried and tested, soyoil is a marketing scheme, hydrogen is dangerous, and most ideas apply the idea of paring top soil for the sake of energy and neglecting the necessity to use the top soil instead to plant crops for people to eat.

I am not too sure, but is this not what Brazil is doing as of now? I know they are chopping. burning, logging down their rainforest for farming, and I wonder how much is used for their ethanol production.

Frosty, are you involved in the petroleum industry? I noticed you continuously trying to discredit 'green' alternatives. First in my thread, now in this thread? What gives?

Originally posted by Frosty
'Green' alternatives have been around for decades and they have never panned out. Particularly because of a lack of resources attributed to poor planning, poor products, and little interest amongst concumers. Rendering plants have been around for over a decade, you probably know them better as the de-polymerization plants that use turkey parts to make oil, but the problem with this idea is that rendering plants smell. They smell utterly horrible and people want nothing to do with them for the most part. Though most of the early rendering plants used fish parts, I suppose turkey parts may be less corrosive on the senses, although nothing suggest that these pants are any better.

Nobody likes a rendering plant to be in their area because they do smell very bad, but something has to be done with the unused parts of the animals so why not use them for something useful.

Ethanol has been tried and tested,

Brazil has been doing this for years and are even able to sell surplus energy as electricity from the process.

soyoil is a marketing scheme,

Soybeans are not the only crop that produce oil, the first diesel engine was run on peanut oil. I'm sure that there are other crops that will produce higher yields/acre than soybeans.

hydrogen is dangerous,

Depends on how it is handled.

and most ideas apply the idea of paring top soil for the sake of energy and neglecting the necessity to use the top soil instead to plant crops for people to eat.

I'm a farmer. People in this country have no idea how many crops are wasted in the fields and rot every year that could be used for energy production.

I am not too sure, but is this not what Brazil is doing as of now? I know they are chopping. burning, logging down their rainforest for farming, and I wonder how much is used for their ethanol production.

Not exactly. They are doing what you are saying, but for different reasons. It is mostly for soybean production, because they can do that and not fertilize the land or use many chemicals for a few years. That way they can produce a crop cheaply during those years then they move to a new area. This is something that I don't agree with and feel that they will have to pay dearly for one day.

Brazil grows 6.6 million acres of sugarcane, not all for ethanol production. If all the sugarcane production went to producing ethanol, this would meet Brazil's energy needs. If not, it would need to increase it's sugarcane production to about 13.8 million acres.

Originally posted by Frosty
Pffftt. How do you know oil alternatives are not getting the respect and funds they should? What is meant by oil alternatives? Do you have any first hand knowledge in this, how much research have you done? Soyoil is crap anyway.

Well i know oil aternatives is not getting the respect and funds they should because they are not more popular than they are. If a given government invested in advertising and MAKING such popular it would be and it could easily use national strategic independence ( good luck trying that with America around) as a selling point to offset the slightly higher costs.

What is meant by oil alternatives is basically that it's a good idea to do whatever you can to develope local energy production/mining sources so that you are not subject to international market craziness. Do i need first hand knowledge to be able to read books on the topic and thus learn about the topic?

When was the last time you actually had a positive attitude towards change in this world on ANY topic? All i ever see is you shouting that ' it-can't-work' whatever the topic or your ignorance of it. What's different this time and do you for once know what your talking about?

Stellar

I think we're finally seeing a positive thing on the oil alternative platform. Aircraft are now adopting coal-based fuel. They actually create liquid fuel from coal. It's one of the cheapest fossil fuels and if adopted, may significantly reduce our dependence on oil. The Germans actually produced this sort of fuel for their planes in WWII. I also heard that a major airline may switch to this sort of fuel. Imagine what that could do to flight costs! Technology Review published a great article all about the technology.

www.technologyreview.com...

Well i know oil aternatives is not getting the respect and funds they should because they are not more popular than they are. If a given government invested in advertising and MAKING such popular it would be and it could easily use national strategic independence ( good luck trying that with America around) as a selling point to offset the slightly higher costs.

You mean like ....oh I dunno .....JAPAN!

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum

Originally posted by Lady of the Lake
It is an outrage that alternatives to oil are not getting the profile, funding and respect that they should. The manipulation by oil companies is no longer acceptable but the voices of our leaders are silent.

First; don't blame the government. Blame the US citizens. It is their need for cheap and abundant energy that is the biggest barrier to introducing alternate sources/forms of energy.

Second; there isn't enough real estate in the US to grow the amount of soybeans necessary to fulfill the energy needs of America.

Third; If there was enough space, the cost would be astronomical as the care/nurturing needed to produce the soybeans would far exceed the cost of pumping oil from the ground. Would you be willing to pay $15.00 for the equivalent energy of a gallon of gasoline? I wouldn't. And neither would most of Americans.

The only alternative source of energy that could satisfy our energy needs and is cheap is nuclear.

[edit on 7-3-2006 by Freedom_for_sum]

Couldn't have said it better

You have voted Freedom_for_sum for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month.

Some are too quick to point fingers, and they don't stop and analyze the problem from another angle.

Well, if biodiesels are so bad, then why is Big Oil showing signs of interest in it? Why are they endorsing it in fact?



There you have it. The big players are starting to move into the field. Biodiesels can work. Maybe not soybean derived biodiesels -- the oil production from them is so little, but there are many alternatives. Palm oil is a workable alternative. Algae is a very real possibilty.

To completely dismiss the idea is very premature. But hey, if you want to continue to support an unsustainable system, be my guest. Just letting you know that even big corporations are looking at the alternatives.

quote: Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
First; don't blame the government. Blame the US citizens. It is their need for cheap and abundant energy that is the biggest barrier to introducing alternate sources/forms of energy.

Offshore Wave/Wind power

Efficiency of Solar Panels
In some places the total amount of Watt hours per sq meter(8 hour summer day, 40 degree latitude, with an average of 600 watts per sq. meter) meets/exceeds 4.7 wh per sq/m per day. The key for Solar to become a breakthrough and to keep the southwest alive and economically viable for decades to come is for the "experts" to do their thing and keep increasing the efficiency at the slow, but steady rate they've always done.

The nearterm cost is what most have been concentrating on, because they want a larger foothold in the marketplace and get their customers to keep coming back every so often to buy better, cheaper and lighter panels.

Think of this industry as an extension of the Computer and Internet boom, then slow it down by a factor of four(though keep in mind there are many fudge factors like breakthroughs and such).

That is the most realistic view of expansion for this industry.

My point in all this is, there are sources of abundant energy at our fingertips and the governments(including my own non-Kyoto-abiding signee) is doing little compared to other "projects" to help it along-aside from continual increases in Nanotech funding, which does have an effect on Solar panels, Wind Turbines, etc.(Lighter, stronger, possibly cheaper) though in a more indirect fashion.

I'm going to play "If I was the Prime Minister(or president) I would do this" now.

After instability in the middle-east became apparent, after 9/11 occured, one of the responses I would have taken would be to create a "Manhatten"-scale project to do a number of things, some of these things could have already been deep into planning stages by now too... here is a short but heady list:

1. Overhauled power infrastructure: Decentralize as much as possible and make that the paradigm. Make the grids take in power as well as output, all on a free market basis, all across N. America(our grids are intertied with various regional zones, there are 4 or 5 I believe).

2. Dedicate a program to "solve" the power loss problems in contemporary power lines. Perhaps superconductors, perhaps a compromise substance, who knows.

3. Tax incentives to buyers of renewable energy as well as Tax breaks for their producers, no matter how large or small, all at free market rates(eg No price fixing or freezes no matter what).

Second; there isn't enough real estate in the US to grow the amount of soybeans necessary to fulfill the energy needs of America.

No not in the conventional farming sense. There are new forms of hydroponics that could help solve this problem to a certain extent. Here is a link to mull over if you choose.

www.wired.com...

Third; If there was enough space, the cost would be astronomical as the care/nurturing needed to produce the soybeans would far exceed the cost of pumping oil from the ground. Would you be willing to pay $15.00 for the equivalent energy of a gallon of gasoline? I wouldn't. And neither would most of Americans.

You base this on assumptions. If the process was redisigned, with a more "mass-produced factory line product" mentality, you could produce the fuel right in the city in it's suburbs, industrial areas, wherever. Read the link above. If you produce right in near where most of it will be consumed, think of how much energy you'd save from only having to transport the final product to the pumps. They may even one day have smaller "neighborhood" plants that pump the stuff directly into fuel resovoirs of gas stations. We do the same with Natural Gas into people homes, I don't see why this also can't be done either.

Just think of all the money that could be saved by not having to clean up oil spills due to the inevitable #ups.

The only alternative source of energy that could satisfy our energy needs and is cheap is nuclear.

Cheap huh? It's cheap when the plant is working okie dokie, yet when they have to take it down for inevitable maintance and repairs, things can get tricky very quickly, costing whoever was paying for repairs potentially billions of dollars in repair, maintaince, safety upgrades, etc. If we didn't have to worry about safety so much I'd agree with you, it's just another method that will help us, but will never become the single most used energy source. Maybe Fusion would it, with plenty to spare at that, but we are far from that day.

My final point is basically this what I wrote in another thread.

Originally posted by sardion2000
People are gonna have to get used to the fact that there will not be a "One size fits all" solution. We're gonna have to cobble it together until we have to technology to support a fully electric drive powered infrastructure.

www.physorg.com...

interesting last paragraph

Among the possible developments foreseen for the Molecular Foundry are the fabrication of electronic devices out of carbon nanotubes; the detection and treatment of diseases at the cellular level; the reduction of waste and pollution in manufacturing processes; improved sensors for real-time monitoring of chemical and biological activity; high-performance electricity transmission lines and next-generation solar cells.

Hopefully this center will accelerate progress somewhat.

[edit on 3-4-2006 by sardion2000]

Originally posted by sardion2000
You mean like ....oh I dunno .....JAPAN!

Well what about Japan? What exactly about Japan makes them so special considering their EXTREMELY limited energy sources? Feel free to slap down a few facts i can then disagree with Sardion.

Stellar

I have a solution...
We could take the illegals and just make them push.

lol, ok im kidding...

What ever happened with Hydrogen?

I drive a huge diesel truck, and it pollutes alot, and its very expensive to drive... But i love it
:-D

Originally posted by StellarX

Originally posted by sardion2000
You mean like ....oh I dunno .....JAPAN!

Well what about Japan? What exactly about Japan makes them so special considering their EXTREMELY limited energy sources? Feel free to slap down a few facts i can then disagree with Sardion.

Stellar

I was referring to government programs to promote Hybrids, Solar, Wind, Wave, etc. That the rest of the world(save for Germany & Japan) are pretty much ignoring. It was mostly just a useless comment really not adding to, and taking away frmo this thread considerably. I apologize for the useless comment.

[edit on 4-4-2006 by sardion2000]